- This topic has 2,382 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 18 hours ago by
.
- Posts
My view which may be controversial is that the term transgender should not be recognised in our vocabulary you are male or female and nothing can change that.
The more I know the less I understand.
The Supreme Court ruling was very careful to make it clear that discrimination against trans people is still illegal. The idea that this ruling is a threat to their identity or even to their very existence (as some hysterical commentators suggested yesterday) is clearly absurd.
I know a woman to man transgenderist and have known them before and after the procedure. They don’t make a song and dance about it, just gets on with life content in their new identity, doesn’t attend noisy, garish Pride events, doesn’t bang on about transgender rights and, as far as I know doesn’t obsess about which public lavatory to use
Just a pleasant, quiet, friendly individual liked and accepted by all who know them
I hope you all appreciate my careful use of the non-gender-specific pronouns ‘they’ ‘their’ and ‘them’. It’s a shame the English language doesn’t have a neuter personal pronoun other than the unsuitable ‘it’ and ‘its’
And that’s exactly how it could and should be. Pleased to hear it. As with most things in the social media age, everything has become so damn polarised that the debate is often intolerably toxic on both extremes of the spectrum. There is always a middle ground which gets forgotten, or perhaps drowned out.
Interesting point on the language. I do wonder how such things are dealt with in other countries. Many European languages are far more gendered than ours, indeed in many Slavic languages your surname differs for male and female.
Iceland is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name
A gender autonomy act the Icelandic Parliament approved in 2019 allows people who register their gender as non-binary to use bur, a poetic word for “son”, to be repurposed as a neuter suffix instead of son or dóttir
Bridget Phillipson on 25th June 2024: “Trans women can use female toilets.”
Bridget Philippson yesterday: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.”
This individual is in the Cabinet with responsibility for education policy.
Another gem from the “Be Kind” brigade:
Almost one week later and still no word from the Prime Minister about the verdict of the Supreme Court. Given his previous remarks, I think we can take his silence as a sign he does not approve of the verdict. If it had been the other way, I have little doubt he would have issued an approving statement within minutes of the judges leaving the courtroom.
There has also been no word from him about the demonstration in London on Saturday which featured aggressive behaviour, threatening language, mass vandalism and protestors bearing signs openly calling for violence against public figures.
Starmer was very quick to condemn some of the behaviour after Southport. There are people in prison with his full approval for nothing more than tweets, so I take it he will be calling for anyone who clearly issued death threats to be arrested? Or is it OK when his side does it?
I wonder what the lawyer and former Director of Public Prosecutions thinks about Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle, two senior Labour MPs on the ministerial payroll, openly talking about how the verdict should be worked around or ignored? Plenty of Labour MPs are clearly of the same opinion. The same people who last summer talked about how law breakers would feel the full force of the law. But it is OK for them to ignore laws they do not like.
Bryant, Eagle et al are on the side of the crowd in the embedded video in the link below (strong language warning). It is an intelligent and thoughtful analysis by actor James Dreyfus, someone who felt the full force of this mob’s fury when he condemned the death threats made against J.K Rowling:
Well, at least Bridget Phillipson has broken silence on the Ruling and has condemned the weekend’s odious protests. Hopefully Starmer et al will follow her lead
Never in the field of human conflict have so few confused so many
Starmer has now spoken: “I welcome the decision of the Supreme Court, which has given us clarity, much-needed clarity”.
It was only unclear to the likes of him, more preoccupied with finding favour with a vocal minority rather than siding with the overwhelming majority of the public.
Phillipson’s statement is all very well but she is persisting with the lie she made last week. I know “Politician tells lie” is not exactly a “Hold the front page” moment but it is quite brazen.
She’s changed her tune
Last June on Times Radio:
Presenter Kait Borsay confronted Ms Phillipson with a scenario, asking: ‘I am someone who is biologically a male, but I have changed my gender.
‘I’ve got a certificate to prove it, and I’m now a trans woman. Where would I go to the toilet? The men’s toilet or the women’s toilets?’
Ms Phillipson replied: ‘So you don’t police how people use toilets in that sense, but I would expect that if you were someone that had gone through that formal process of recognition, that you are, to all intents and purposes, for legal purposes, regarded as being in a different gender regardless of the sex into which you were born.’
Borsay said: ‘So where do I go? The men’s toilets or the women’s toilets?’
Ms Phillipson said: ‘I would think that in those cases people would be using female toilets.’
Told that wasn’t ‘protecting a woman’s space’, Ms Phillipson said: ‘I’m talking about people who have gone through a process… quite an extensive process.’
With Labour facing a possible drubbing in the Red Wall local council elections in 2 weeks time, it is no surprise there’s a change in their opinions related to the Supreme Court ruling.
Nuff said.
Listening carefully to what Starmer actually said, it was very much a lawyer’s statement. He doesn’t really welcome the verdict. All his past statements and conduct was on the side of the trans activists and against the women who stood up for their rights, who he regards as uppity and troublesome. He probably wishes he could make them shut up but knows he can’t.
“Given us clarity, much-needed clarity”.
Ever since homo sapiens appeared, there has been a clear understanding some are male and some are female. Centuries of human beings and their lived experience. Yet the man who is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland needs a court to tell him what a woman is and seems to regard it as some sort of astonishing revelation.
Let that sink in.
Quite so. But the fact he hasn’t shows what a mean spirited, weak, pathetic little man he is:
J.K Rowling on Starmer: “Imagine being such a coward you can only muster the courage to tell the truth once the Supreme Court has ruled on what the truth is.”
Rowling showing that once again she is the most effective critic of Starmer on this issue. The so called Opposition under the useless Badenoch should be making him squirm. But they are just as compromised as Labour on the issue.
Nevertheless, senior Labour MPs should not be allowed to wriggle off the hook. Worth remembering who they sided with, the next time they pose as the moral and virtuous people:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.